Re: Requirements for IPv6 Firewalls

[Lee Howard <Lee () asgard org>]

On 4/17/14 11:51 AM, "William Herrin" <bill () herrin us> wrote:

> Also, I note your draft is entitled "Requirements for IPv6 Enterprise
> Firewalls." Frankly, no "enterprise" firewall will be taken seriously
> without address-overloaded NAT. I realize that's a controversial
> statement in the IPv6 world but until you get past it you're basically
> wasting your time on a document which won't be useful to industry.

You've said this before, and it is still an absurdly over-broad statement.
Many security professionals have deployed enterprise firewalls to their
satisfaction without NAT-PT.

We had this debate, what, a month ago?  Your position hasn't changed.  No
new use cases have emerged.  Are we done here?

Lee